AILET Legal-Aptitude: Questions 121 - 122 of 152
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 152 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 150.00 or
Question number: 121
Appeared in Year: 2016
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A power conferred by a statute cannot be withdrawn by a subordinate legislation.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The Cinematograph Act conferred powers upon the District Magistrate (DM) to grant license subject to the control of the government. The government framed Rules under the said Act. The effect of these Rules was that the licensing power stood transferred to the Government itself and the District Magistrate was rendered powerless. Whether such Rules are valid?
Although the legislature has conferred power upon the DM to grant license but the government being the implementing agency might find it unfeasible. Therefore, the government rightly withdrew it from the DM.
The Rules are valid since the DM under the Parent Act was not independent but subject to the control of Government.
The licensing power was granted by the Cinematograph Act. Any withdrawal or transfer thereof was possible only through an Amending Act and not by any Rules made under the Parent Act.
The Rules are valid since these are framed under the Parent Act in order to better implement it.
Question number: 122
Appeared in Year: 2016
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Clause (1) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from discriminating between citizens on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The admission Rules of an Engineering College located in XYZ State of India provided that no capitation fee shall be charged from the residents of the XYZ State but the non-residents shall be required to pay capitation fee. Whether the Rules are violative of Article 15 (1) of the Constitution?
Yes, because Article 15 (1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of place of birth which impliedly includes place of residence.
Yes, because Article 15 (1) prohibits discrimination between citizens on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
No, because Article 15 (1) does not prohibit discrimination based on the place of residence.
Yes, because Article 15 (1) prohibits discrimination between citizens on the ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth and the provision suffers from causus omissus and “place of residence” is inadvertently omitted.